• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

If one then suffers from hearing loss or tinnitus at an older age, this could perhaps be a late consequence. ;)
Yep. I’m 52 and have occasional very mild ringing in my ears. Worth it, so far! Of course, I still do DH MTB and enjoy riding the rough and steep lines and keep trying the larger and larger jumps, so my risk/reward calls might be off.
 
I’m not sure that its non-flatness means what you seem to be implying it means? I mean, why should a headphone FR curve be flat, when the measuring mic is in the ear canal? It’s not logical to expect it.
Let me be really clear then. The Harmon Curve seems to be acceptable when it comes to headphones. Dan Clark headphones seem to conform to this standard without EQ. If an “audiophile” states that flat frequency response is a goal in the listening room, but also accepts a non-flat response in headphones because it meets the Harmon Curve - said individual is not being consistent. Also could be considered “full of it” or “hypocritical. Certain individuals like to trash vinyl - multiple entries in this thread - while praising what they like. For the record, I personally am okay with vinyl, digital - whatever as long as the recording pleases me. I am also okay with others being as “anal retentive“ as they want. Does not affect me or what I like. Occasionally, I will call out what I think is BS - always open to discussion as I could be off track.
 
Let me be really clear then. The Harmon Curve seems to be acceptable when it comes to headphones. Dan Clark headphones seem to conform to this standard without EQ. If an “audiophile” states that flat frequency response is a goal in the listening room, but also accepts a non-flat response in headphones because it meets the Harmon Curve - said individual is not being consistent. Also could be considered “full of it” or “hypocritical. Certain individuals like to trash vinyl - multiple entries in this thread - while praising what they like. For the record, I personally am okay with vinyl, digital - whatever as long as the recording pleases me. I am also okay with others being as “anal retentive“ as they want. Does not affect me or what I like. Occasionally, I will call out what I think is BS - always open to discussion as I could be off track.
Isn’t the Harmon curve thought to be that way because it replicates a flat curve we would hear from speakers. In other words when measured at the ear canal (as opposed to open air in a room, you need a shape like the Harmon curve to achieve flatness?
 
The entire point of the Harman curve (or headphones in general) is that you're defeating big chunks of the waveguides that make up your outer ear by shoving drivers directly on / in them, and the non-flat EQ compensates (to the extent practical) for that.

Your analogy might work better if you said something like "don't trust audiophiles who want a flat response but apply a loudness EQ at low volumes to compensate for Fletcher-Munson" but I don't think that would win much agreement here either
 
Last edited:
Let me be really clear then. The Harmon Curve seems to be acceptable when it comes to headphones. Dan Clark headphones seem to conform to this standard without EQ. If an “audiophile” states that flat frequency response is a goal in the listening room, but also accepts a non-flat response in headphones because it meets the Harmon Curve - said individual is not being consistent.
Perfectly consistent. Dr Olive has made the casual observation that the headphone response curve that is most preferred has a notable correspondence to the in-room sonics of a loudspeaker with a flat, smooth extended axial frequency response and good off-axis characteristics. In other words, if we had measured the speaker’s direct sound with microphones inside the ear canal, and added room gain, it would look a lot like the Harman headphone curve (which is measured in the ear canal). So the preference hasn’t changed, but where we put the microphone has changed (of necessity), and that is why the curves look different.
Also could be considered “full of it” or “hypocritical.
Ouch. That’s a very poorly misinformed and judgemental attitude.
Certain individuals like to trash vinyl - multiple entries in this thread - while praising what they like.
I think you are misinterpreting anyone who you are judging this way.

Most people who are critical of vinyl are critical of its accuracy, consistency and repeatability: from deck to deck, from cartridge to cartridge, from sample to sample of a record, from pressing to pressing, from clean to slightly less clean, and from the start of a side to the end of a side. Every one of those six failings against the three core criteria of a reproduction medium, are difficult to endorse if one has standards and also has a cheaper easier alternative that meets all three criteria in all six domains.

If certain individuals are strongly critical of vinyl while praising better reproducers because ‘what they like’ is excellent reproduction, that’s not hypocritical.
For the record,
LOL, got it! ;)
I personally am okay with vinyl, digital - whatever as long as the recording pleases me. I am also okay with others being as “anal retentive“ as they want. Does not affect me or what I like. Occasionally, I will call out what I think is BS - always open to discussion as I could be off track.
As written above, I do think your calling out is a bit off track (pun) wrt to the intention of those you say are ‘full of it’. OTOH as a hobbyist having fun, I am okay with all sorts of eccentricities. I have 4 TTs and a long term concept TT that I am stalled on but hope to finish before I die of old age in 20-30 years. I have a very decent cassette deck and an ancient R2R deck that needs attention. I have an all-valve active crossover that is no longer in service but that I am fond of just because it exists. I seriously do ‘get’ the hobbyist angle.

That doesn’t make me, or others here, a hypocrite for insisting that in terms of reproduction excellence, the above reproducers don’t cut it. Not any more.

cheers
 
I have 4 TTs and a long term concept TT that I am stalled on but hope to finish before I die of old age in 20-30 years. I have a very decent cassette deck and an ancient R2R deck that needs attention. I have an all-valve active crossover that is no longer in service but that I am fond of just because it exists. I seriously do ‘get’ the hobbyist angle.

Well...this goes in to my "learn something new every day file." :)
 
Perfectly consistent. Dr Olive has made the casual observation that the headphone response curve that is most preferred has a notable correspondence to the in-room sonics of a loudspeaker with a flat, smooth extended axial frequency response and good off-axis characteristics. In other words, if we had measured the speaker’s direct sound with microphones inside the ear canal, and added room gain, it would look a lot like the Harman headphone curve (which is measured in the ear canal). So the preference hasn’t changed, but where we put the microphone has changed (of necessity), and that is why the curves look different.

Ouch. That’s a very poorly misinformed and judgemental attitude.

I think you are misinterpreting anyone who you are judging this way.

Most people who are critical of vinyl are critical of its accuracy, consistency and repeatability: from deck to deck, from cartridge to cartridge, from sample to sample of a record, from pressing to pressing, from clean to slightly less clean, and from the start of a side to the end of a side. Every one of those six failings against the three core criteria of a reproduction medium, are difficult to endorse if one has standards and also has a cheaper easier alternative that meets all three criteria in all six domains.

If certain individuals are strongly critical of vinyl while praising better reproducers because ‘what they like’ is excellent reproduction, that’s not hypocritical.

LOL, got it! ;)

As written above, I do think your calling out is a bit off track (pun) wrt to the intention of those you say are ‘full of it’. OTOH as a hobbyist having fun, I am okay with all sorts of eccentricities. I have 4 TTs and a long term concept TT that I am stalled on but hope to finish before I die of old age in 20-30 years. I have a very decent cassette deck and an ancient R2R deck that needs attention. I have an all-valve active crossover that is no longer in service but that I am fond of just because it exists. I seriously do ‘get’ the hobbyist angle.

That doesn’t make me, or others here, a hypocrite for insisting that in terms of reproduction excellence, the above reproducers don’t cut it. Not any more.

cheers
I will have to read up on the Harmon Curve a bit to verify what has been said about it.

Please understand I was not calling you out here, but speaking in general. Getting specific about someone trashing vinyl would involve mentioning Sal - I think his position is fairly clear. You might be in his crosshairs now that you have admitted to owning 4 turntables- LOL.

If I could pick just one thing to call “bullshit” on - it would be the notion that the dynamic range of Red Book makes vinyl records obsolete. How often is 96 db of dynamic range used. Given the widest range recordings are less than 40 db, often way less. Vinyl can do over 60 db, which is also adequate for any recordings out there. Where digital shines is the low noise floor and as you had mentioned- consistency. If you do everything correctly with vinyl- good enough turntable, arm, cartridge with shibata or microline and setup then you have decent baseline noise. If your records are clean and scratch free……
 
I will have to read up on the Harmon Curve a bit to verify what has been said about it.

Please understand I was not calling you out here, but speaking in general. Getting specific about someone trashing vinyl would involve mentioning Sal - I think his position is fairly clear. You might be in his crosshairs now that you have admitted to owning 4 turntables- LOL.

If I could pick just one thing to call “bullshit” on - it would be the notion that the dynamic range of Red Book makes vinyl records obsolete. How often is 96 db of dynamic range used. Given the widest range recordings are less than 40 db, often way less. Vinyl can do over 60 db, which is also adequate for any recordings out there. Where digital shines is the low noise floor and as you had mentioned- consistency. If you do everything correctly with vinyl- good enough turntable, arm, cartridge with shibata or microline and setup then you have decent baseline noise. If your records are clean and scratch free……
Also, to take advantage of 96 dB or recorded range, don’t you have to play it at 96 dBSPL?
 
...plus an allowance for the noise floor of the room...
 
Also, to take advantage of 96 dB or recorded range, don’t you have to play it at 96 dBSPL?
Plus - as Newman mentioned - overcoming the noise floor of the room so you can hear the soft passages. If your room's floor is 35 db you would have to crank it to greater than 131 db peaks if you had a recording that was 96 db. Some of the DACS tested here have 22 bits of resolution - makes no difference in the real world over 16 bits which in turn is way more than adequate. If you have a 1000 HP Tesla and the speed limit is 70 MPH, you get a ticket if you use all that potential speed capability. Get enough tickets you lose your license. If you had a recording with 96 db and play it loud enough to experience that range you get to damage your hearing. Play it that loud often enough you lose your hearing. Practicality has to be considered.
 
Ok, then we essentially agree on my point. Cheers.



I have fooled people that someone was practicing saxophone in the next room (a recording I made of my son practicing sax).

The system comprised tube amps driving an MBL omni speaker.
what are your impressions of the omni speaker? I have never known anyone that had them.
 
Plus - as Newman mentioned - overcoming the noise floor of the room so you can hear the soft passages. If your room's floor is 35 db you would have to crank it to greater than 131 db peaks if you had a recording that was 96 db. Some of the DACS tested here have 22 bits of resolution - makes no difference in the real world over 16 bits which in turn is way more than adequate. If you have a 1000 HP Tesla and the speed limit is 70 MPH, you get a ticket if you use all that potential speed capability. Get enough tickets you lose your license. If you had a recording with 96 db and play it loud enough to experience that range you get to damage your hearing. Play it that loud often enough you lose your hearing. Practicality has to be considered.

Interesting. Folks tend to notice when they are in a 1000HP Tesla even if it drives below 70MPH.

You also notice an effectively transparent high-power electronics when paired with (half-) decent speakers. You don't need to crank it.
This applies even if there is noise floor - but you probably should reduce noise as much as it is practical if we are talking hifi.

With vinyl, you really have to pay quite a bit to get something decent. But even then, the differences between playing records and digital (16/44.1k) remain rather obvious.
 
With vinyl, you really have to pay quite a bit to get something decent.
I don’t think you do, by my definitions of decent at least. The entire TT part of my system cost $400. Late 80s turntables are abundant and they are often far better, even used, than many TTS made today. The turntable itself was $80 and has very low rumble and W&F. The pre ($180) is the second best measured here in terms of SINAD. It does have .5dB variation from RIAA, but that is inaudible to me. I don’t think I could tell a better setup unless I was short term blind ABing them. Even then I’m not sure I could hear a difference, since I only got 3 of 4 right on the worst measuring amp posted here compared to “wire with gain”.
 
It does have .5dB variation from RIAA, but that is inaudible to me.
This is also true for me! I actually pride myself on hearing things accurately. Then I had an interesting experience when I once had a phono preamp where I could adjust the treble and bass equalization continuously variable. I learned that small deviations from the ideal cannot be detected with certainty when listening.
 
I don’t think you do, by my definitions of decent at least. The entire TT part of my system cost $400. Late 80s turntables are abundant and they are often far better, even used, than many TTS made today. The turntable itself was $80 and has very low rumble and W&F. The pre ($180) is the second best measured here in terms of SINAD. It does have .5dB variation from RIAA, but that is inaudible to me. I don’t think I could tell a better setup unless I was short term blind ABing them. Even then I’m not sure I could hear a difference, since I only got 3 of 4 right on the worst measuring amp posted here compared to “wire with gain”.
Late 80s tables are interesting of course. You can also get an AudioTechnica LP120, which comes with a decent cart and amp, and probably beats a whole lot of aging tables.

.. but you also need records ...
 
You can also get an AudioTechnica LP120, which comes with a decent cart and amp, and probably beats a whole lot of aging tables.
This is very unlikely, because this particular model has relatively poor technical specifications and does not sound good either. On one example that I once had, I could even hear the motor noise from close by. I would not recommend this particular model.
 
Late 80s tables are interesting of course. You can also get an AudioTechnica LP120, which comes with a decent cart and amp, and probably beats a whole lot of aging tables.

.. but you also need records ...
Fortunately, plenty of those about, both new and used, if a bit pricey.
 
This is very unlikely, because this particular model has relatively poor technical specifications and does not sound good either. On one example that I once had, I could even hear the motor noise from close by. I would not recommend this particular model.
Do you mean the $300 AudioTechnica LP120 with ~0.2% wow and flutter and ~50db rumble?
Of course one can do better with a $735 Pioneer PLX-1000 with ~0.1% W&F and ~70db rumble or a $1800 Technics SL1200GR 0.025% W&F and ~79dB rumble.
.. or use a belt drive table with speed adjustment pod.

Of course, to my point, none of these values are any good in the digial age ;)

PS. hearing the motor noise sounds like a problem with that specific table/motor.
 
Closest measurements to my Performance DC are here. http://www.soundfowndations.co.uk/reviews/HFN_Clearaudio Performance DC_lowres.pdf

Mine has the Satisfy Carbon arm. The referenced review the TT-5 Linear arm.
Relevant measurements below. I think they are "good enough".

IMG_1677.jpeg
 
Back
Top Bottom